Trees have life- bhAshya

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

This makes me wonder if science played a part in the story of Ahalya and how she

turned into a rock and then into a human being on Rama's touch... Maybe there

is a deeper inner meaning/scientific reasoning in that story...

 

On a slightly different note, I have read (can't recall where), that a

scientific experiment was conducted wherein some kind of meter (to measure sound

fluctuations) was attached to a plant. The scientists made some sudden noises,

and shouted at another plat growing near to this plant. They noticed that each

time there was a sudden noise, the meter showed readings of shock (sudden

frequency fluctuations). This shows that plants too had feelings.

 

Another simple sign of this can be seen by observing how plants turn towards a

source of light.

 

Pranams.

Anand

 

 

 

Steve Stoker <otnac6

advaitin

Friday, December 7, 2007 12:55:02 PM

Re: Re: Trees have life- bhAshya

 

Not only plants, but metals too!

 

And rocks and everything else! Even Ramana stated that

the very rocks upon which people sat at the ashram

were alive. It seems that maybe it's merely

humankind's hubris that let's us exclude life from

some parts of Brahman and include life in other parts!

Other than for practical, everyday purpose and usage

of these definitions, why should we presume to know

what's alive and what isn't?

 

(well, of course, if I talk to my shirt in public, or

address a telephone pole, I shouldn't be surprised if

I'm hauled away and given some practical advise on

what's " alive " and what's " dead " !!!)

 

____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _

Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

http://www.. com/r/hs

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Looking for last minute shopping deals?

Find them fast with Search.

http://tools.search./newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Vaibhav,

 

The kathopanishad mantra you refer to does not mean that stones, metals,

etc. have consciousness. What it says is that the subtle body or jIva takes

another body according to its karma, etc. According to vedAnta, sentient

beings have a subtle body and this includes plants and trees, but not

stones, etc. Death is the departure of the subtle body from the gross body.

It is the subtle body that reflects consciousness. On death the gross body

therefore becomes insentient. Even dead bodies as well as stones, etc., are

superimposed on pure consciousness, but that cannot make them sentient What

gives sentiency is the subtle body which alone has the power to reflect

consciousness. According to vedAnta stones and other insentient objects do

not have a subtle body and so they do not have consciousness. A man may be

born as an animal or even as a plant if his pApa is so great, but not as

stone, metal, etc. The word 'sthANu' in kathopanishad mentioned by you

refers only to plants and trees and not stones, etc.

 

My object in my previous posting was to point out that the upanishad itself

says that trees have consciousness. I wanted to know when science discovered

this. Anyway the upanishad is much older and so our ancients knew that trees

have consciousness long before science discovered it. This is what I wanted

to point out. The discussion has however taken a different turn.

 

S.N.Sastri

 

 

 

Apart from the Bhasya reference you quote, there is a

reference in Kathopanishad suggesting that not only

plants, but even inanimate objects like stones have

'life'.

" 6 Well then, Gautama, I shall tell you about this

profound and eternal Brahman and also about what

happens to the atman after meeting death.

 

7 Some jivas enter the womb to be embodied as organic

beings and some go into non-organic matter according

to their work and according to their knowledge. "

 

So, not only are animals and plants alive, but even

rocks and all inorganic matter, albeit at a lower

degree of evolution.

Vaibhav

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Sastriji,

 

Sorry if the discussion took a different turn than your original intention.

However, it would be hasty to say that science has now accepted that plants have

'consciousness', since as the articles Sunderji quoted would suggest, the term

consciousness is not very well defined in science. What all scientists would

agree is that plants are 'alive', which means that, 'that which makes humans and

animals alive', is present in the plants also. What that thing is, however

eludes the science. This is what my understanding is.

 

As you rightly pointed out, Vedanta claims this 'something which makes an object

alive' is the sukshma sharira. But why can a sukshma sharira not be present in

say a stone, or a piece of metal. Acharya defines sukshma sharira as " existing

with its seventeen phases: the five powers of knowing; the five powers of doing;

the five lives; emotion, one; the soul, one; this is the Emotional Vesture. "

(Tattva Bodha). " Except the soul, these powers of knowing and doing, as well as

the prANas are present in greater or lesser extent in various human beings, it

is even lesser in animals and much lesser in plants. Following the same

progression, it can be said that these powers are much less expressed in a stone

or metal as compared to anything routinely defined as 'living'.

 

So what prevents from a sukshma sharira to enter a stone or a metal? As far as I

understand there is nothing fundamentally different between a human/animal body

and a stone etc. if the sukshma sharira is absent from the latter. **Is there a

specific and direct quote in the Shruti saying the sukshma sharira CANNOT enter

the objects normally defined as 'not alive', say a rock or a metal?**

 

Lastly, the translation I quoted was by Swami Nikhilananda from the following

site and is as authentic as any other translation which I know of.

http://shankaracharya.org/katha_upanishad.php

 

If I understand it right, the word sthANu means firm, immovable, motionless and

would describe anything which falls under that category, including stones etc.

 

 

This, again, is my understanding and I do not find anything in it which violates

any fundamental claim laid down in the shrutis, nor does it violate common

logic. It certainly is in tune with what has been shown by scientific

experiments.

 

If there is anything in the shruti, which is contrary to be above, please let me

know. Sorry again if the discussion turned astray because of my previous post.

 

Pranam,

Vaibhav.

 

 

 

5, 50, 500, 5000 - Store N number of mails in your inbox.